It appears that my stomping on and ruining their Popper-powered whac-a-mole game is not being taken lightly. Now, only a drug crazed crazy person could argue with what has since around 1980 been the foundation of their science. Oh bad me.

This seriously is where I draw the line with all the ways some have to stop valuable scientific progress, especially that useless arm-chair excuse for giving up before even getting started. None can be excused from having to show evidence to the contrary of what is clearly enough stated in the theory. There not being any, still speaks for itself.

i would appreciate if, before you flounce out, you explain to us just what the fuck it is that you think your "theory" explains anyway.

because, ummmmm, you never did that shit. posting timecube graphics or True Tard Text Walls is not a substitute for a simple "Hey, my theory predicts this shit and this shit and that shit and says that this shit won't happen".

it's fun to play cocktease though, isn't it? you have a history of doing that, luv

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG